Mea Culpa

More Transitions

nospam@example.com (Will Luongo) — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 01:00:00 -0400

For almost a year now, I have been making weekly updates with my thoughts and problems. Like many of the other things in my life right now, this activity too has come under scrutiny.

And like many of the other things, I have decided that, for now at least, it is time for me to move on, or at least take a break. I will be taking a sabbatical of sorts, and until further notice, I will not be committing to a weekly schedule of updates.

It has been an interesting journey, and one I may take up again at some other time.

Thank you for your readership.

Hopefully for real this time

nospam@example.com (Will Luongo) — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:30:44 -0400

It looks like my internet connection should be repaired. Again. So hopefully I will be back in the swing of things soon.

In other news, I took down the forums, as they were just being used by spammers anyway.

Reflecting Priorities

nospam@example.com (Will Luongo) — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:18:38 -0400

Some people have alleged that I am creepy, as in I can observe someone for a short period of time, and build an ever strengthening algorithm with which I can predict their actions, and know their emotions without them deliberately expressing them.

These allegations are true, and today I will share with you some of the insights that allow me to build these algorithms.

One of the easiest things to figure out in a person is what drives them to do what they do.

Have you ever seen the commercial for the car where the guy is talking to his friend, and he says "You can tell a lot about a person by their car. Whoever has this car is the man!"?

While the man in the commercial obviously doesn't have it down to an art, you can tell a lot about people by their house, or their car. Not because of the vehicle or the home themselves, but because the things in the car or house will reveal their priorities.

This is why priorities are probably the easiest things to figure out about a person: Priorities don't really require a frame of reference. You can safely evaluate a person's priorities without spending a great deal of time with them.

For example, one of my closest friends is a mother of two boys. You can tell as soon as you walk into her house that her kids are one of the most important things in her life. There are pictures drawn by her children on the fridge, a wall of pictures of her kids on the wall in the living room, and everywhere you look there is some kind of reminder that children live there.

On the other hand, another friend of mine is a mother as well. But her house is sterile, in order and just so. No where you look do you see evidence that children live there.

The first friend's days are spent taking her kids to and from ball games, activities, and spending time with her children. The second friend spends her days working out, going to events for herself, and doesn't take her kids places unless she is already headed in that direction.

It becomes apparent that the first friend places a higher premium or priority on her children, where the second friend's priorities are more self focused.

People will allocate the things that are important to them, to things that are important to them. This seems obvious, but upon closer examination, it is the key to unlocking the priorities of others.

Time is very important to me. I am very busy, and since I am so busy, I have to budget my time to maximize its use. In other words, things and people that are important to me will get more time than those that are not. For almost two years, I worked (for free) at Celebrate Recovery. There were many times where other things I wanted to do were going on at the same time, a LAN party at the college, or a TV show about a choir. I had to decide which was more important. So without knowing much about me, you can tell how important (relatively speaking) CR was. For the past two years, I have missed maybe a total of four Fridays since I have started, and none of the times were because of the LAN party or the TV show.

Money has a value many of us appreciate. So you can safely tell where an organizations priorities are by how they allocate their funds. For example, at Central they have a 9 Million dollar building budget. So when they decided not to pay the people who were running it $60,000/yr to be able to stay, they said that CR was less important than the building. Ok, this might not be bad right? Without a building, CR would be much more difficult to facilitate. But then we see: The youth pastor they are looking to hire will get paid. The senior pastor and associate pastor get paid. So does the administrative pastor. So that means that CR is less important than the other programs. it is that simple. People will spend money where they see value.

The last church I worked at had a $50,000 budget (total). $47,000 was the senior pastor's salary, $2,600 was my pay, $2,600 was rent for the building. The rest was misc church related costs, office supplies, licensing, insurance, etc. Where were their priorities?

Where are your priorities? Think about the things most important to you. Maybe it is your time. Maybe it is your money. What do you spend the things most precious to you on? Who gets your resources?

Pre post post

nospam@example.com (Will Luongo) — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:53:27 -0400

As many of you (and by many I mean the two of you who read these anyway) have noticed, I am once again late, and not only am I late for this week, last week's post isn't up yet.

Fear not, my children. It looks as if my internet has finally been restored to me. Yes, that is right. 1.5 weeks, daily phone calls, and six visits from techs later, I am back in the swing of things.

To celebrate, I will be posting a two for one special this week. That's right, twice the Will blogging goodness, half the calories.

Or something like that.

Lateness and internets

nospam@example.com (Will Luongo) — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:06:39 -0400

Today's blog may or may not be late, since my internet connection at home is not yet hooked up.

If it is, I will be posting tonight after going to listen to my friend Marco's testimony in Saginaw.

The end of an era

nospam@example.com (Will Luongo) — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:00:00 -0400

For everything there is a season,
a time for every activity under heaven.
A time to be born and a time to die.
A time to plant and a time to harvest.
A time to kill and a time to heal.
A time to tear down and a time to build up.
A time to cry and a time to laugh.
A time to grieve and a time to dance.
A time to scatter stones and a time to gather stones.
A time to embrace and a time to turn away.
A time to search and a time to quit searching.
A time to keep and a time to throw away.
A time to tear and a time to mend.
A time to be quiet and a time to speak.
A time to love and a time to hate.
A time for war and a time for peace.

This particular piece of the bible has been one of my favorites since I've had a favorite part of the bible. It is referenced several times in popular culture, but the two I remember best are the Byrds "Turn Turn Turn" and in Anne McCaffrey's All the Weyrs of Pern

Part of the reason I remember this scripture so well, is because in All the Weyrs of Pern (spoiler alert), a very influential and beloved character dies. Shortly before he dies, an intelligent computer deactivates itself and quotes Ecclesiastes 3. The poignancy of this scene always resonated deeply with me, and was actually what lead me to look up the actual verse in the bible in the first place.

On the one hand, it seems as if this verse is stating the obvious, that these words fail to reveal something deeper about the human condition.

I know from personal experience that this is not true.

Haven't you had an experience you never wanted to end? Maybe it was a first kiss, or the first night with a new lover, or the moment right after you beat Mario Bros for the first time. Maybe it was the moment your wife was walked down the altar to you, or the birth of your first child.

I know that there are several occasions in my life that I haven't wanted to end. When I am around good friends, and everything seems to be going right, I often feel as if time should stop so I don't have to face the future.

But often we also do this with larger moments, don't we? Larger snapshots of time, or activities we are involved in. We'd like the places we go to stay the same, and the people who go with us to never change.

Unfortunately, despite our desires otherwise, time slips away. Things we could see ourselves doing forever gradually lose their luster, and sometimes things we never thought we'd do seem more plausible.

For me, it seemed like for a while I would be doing Central Celebrate Recovery for at least a decade or so. I even thought maybe someday it could become a full time position and that I wouldn't have to work anywhere else.

At CCR it had been my time to speak, my time to fight, my time to build up. But everything has a season, and seasons change. It is certainly a bittersweet change, but a change which was inevitable, and in many ways timely.

On the one hand, I very much look forward to having Thursday and Friday nights to myself, or available to do other things. I very much look forward to having a whole week of nights to my wife and I, or friends.

On the other hand, I very much remember the fond memories, too. Memories of building the praise team practically from scratch, memories of arguing with leaders, and shocking people by saying "pissed" from the stage. Memories of leading people in impromptu CCR theme songs.

More than anything else, I remember the praise team. Playing whirly ball at the Christmas party, putting together a surprise birthday party for Marty and Kevin. In the beginning I fought to keep singers on the praise team others thought weren't good enough, and now I am having the same fight with different people.

It's not easy to leave behind something you built lovingly by hand, pouring your blood, sweat, and tears into it for almost two years. I know that Rebecca can really relate to this, too.

But sometimes, even though it hurts, it is for the best of everyone involved to move on. Whether or not Celebrate continues in its current form, hopefully in the time that we were here, people have been changed. Hopefully people on the praise team have a new idea about what worship is about, and what it means to be on stage. Hopefully other leaders see a new way of ministry, one that is safe for the unchurched, one that is authentic and welcoming and void of christianese.

Even if Celebrate fails, and maybe especially if it does: Maybe this experience has sparked a new generation of people who will not accept status quo, and want more of what God offers. Maybe they will take their ideas to their next church, to their next praise team.

Then again maybe not. Unfortunately, in the end, it is not up to me. In the end it is up to God and the people of Celebrate.

I hope they prove that the last two years of my life were filled with as much purpose and meaning as I had thought.

Why Jesus is a bad product

nospam@example.com (Will Luongo) — Tue, 29 May 2007 02:13:28 -0400

Have you ever encountered an evangelical christian? I think pretty much every person has at one time or another (in America, at least). Some of you may even consider yourselves to be evangelical christians. You may or may not be one of the kinds I am talking about here, but either way, I think this idea certainly bears examination.

In evangelical christian culture, we typically look to make conversions by either outlining the various benefits of faith in Jesus Christ as savior (fire insurance, or peace and contentment, etc), or by showing the intellectual superiority of basic tenants of the christian faith (this is known as apologetics). Both of these methods of evangelism very much resemble marketing techniques used in our capitalist society, where the consumer is meant to buy into whatever marketing hype can be generated.

In the consumerism model, various parties try to convince us through different methods that their product is one we should buy. There are many ways this is done, from celebrity endorsements (implying that if you buy this product, you too, will be like Michael Jordon), raw appeal to emotion (think of "For pennies a day, you can feed this child", or "I've fallen and I can't get up!"). There is the AB comparisons to other products, like Tide vs your leading brand detergent, or non-narcotic Lunesta.

To me, after some reflection the similarities are too clear. Somewhere, christians have bought into the idea that these are the methods you use to convert people to your product, Jesus Christ.

For example, haven't we all encountered the guy who has all the science to back up his view of creation, which of course is intellectually superior to pagan theories of evolution? Or the philosopher that can prove a priori that belief in God makes more sense in believing the absence of God? Or what about the people who make you feel like shit because you don't ascribe to their flavor of christianity, that your life is somehow less complete or meaningful because you don't?

There are a variety of ways that we try to get people to join the ranks of christendom. The problem is that most of them make Jesus into a product to be sold, or bought.

You might think: what is the problem with that? Don't we buy superior products simply because they are superior? If Jesus Christ really is the best way, shouldn't the faith be able to stand up to a capitalistic cross examination?

Well, yes, and it does, in my opinion. But the problem isn't that christianity fails in this model, the problem is in this model the focus is always on the consumer. In other words, we train people from the very beginning to believe that christianity is about them. Then we wonder why people grow in their faith but still have small world views that are entirely ego-centric. We wonder why our churches are filled with people who can't see beyond themselves, the forest for the trees so to speak.

When the way that we "convert" people is the same way we sell products to consumers, it should be no surprise that the people then approach their religion from the perspective of the consumer. It is how we've approached them in the first place.

But Jesus, He modeled a different form of evangelism. One that seems so strange to our capitalist, individual driven society, that we can't help but fall into marketing patterns to try to do "kingdom work".

St. Francis said “Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.” Many protestant (and probably catholic as well) christians deny this method of evangelism, that even Jesus had to resort to ideas expressed in words to evangelize.

This can't be further from the truth. Over and over again, throughout the new testament, Jesus goes around ministering to people through His actions. Whether it is raising the dead, or eating dinner with social outcasts, Jesus put people in front of His agenda. In fact, the only times He speaks of intellectual truths it is to one of two groups of people: The people who already come to Jesus to get these truths, and: The people who claim to already have it (the religious leaders of the day).

How much then does our evangelical model differ from Jesus'? Especially considering most of our "apologetics" are focused on intellectually brow-beating the "unsaved", rather than the dipshitted christians we call brethren? Why did we start putting programs and buildings in front of people, but still call it doing kingdom work? Why are we surprised that the non-christians view us as a bunch of used car salesmen?

It is about time for a change. What if we actually started caring about people, no strings attached? Loving them for who they are, and not just as spiritual notches on the bedpost? What if people are the ends, not the means? If more christians lived like that, more people would care what we thought about spiritual truths.

It might be cliche, it might be cheesy. That doesn't make it less true:

People don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care.

Going through the motions

nospam@example.com (Will Luongo) — Tue, 22 May 2007 11:13:31 -0400

I think a long time ago I started a trend of behavior that got me into my current predicament. When I was still a new christian, I had already seen many things that weren't the way they were supposed to be. From church, to work, to home, I was always encountering people that are unwilling to challenge status quo. So I made a vow to never become on of those people. But being a good little new christian, I knew that a vow alone wouldn't be enough to overcome that kind of opposition.

So I started praying that I would never be satisfied with status quo, that I would never be one of those people that accepted things just because that's the way things are. I prayed that I would never be content with the atrocities of the human condition.

Unfortunately for me, praying that seems to have worked. Just like the old cliche: "Be careful what you wish for, it might come true."

Over the course of the last few weeks, I've pretty much been going through the motions. Of being a good christian, of being a good friend or husband. It isn't that I stopped being those things, it's just that maybe for a while I wish I could.

Sometimes it just gets so overwhelming and lonely being the only person in your sphere of influence that is willing to fight for the way things are supposed to be. It isn't that the people around me don't want things to be right, they just need someone else to lead them along.

I am reminded of Rob Bell in his book Velvet Elvis. For those of you that don't know, Rob is the founding pastor of a huge mega-church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, that has a congregation primarily of high schoolers and college students. Trendy young people even. He manages to explain the way God and faith work in a way that isn't churchy, or pretentious, or just plain stupid.

Well, one time before a service, Rob couldn't deal with the pressure anymore. He was at a moment of crisis. He basically said: "God, you've got the wrong guy. I don't know how to be this superpastor everyone thinks I should be. I don't have it all together and I can't bear pretending I do."

As I was reading this, I was very encouraged. Not because there is some sick part of me that wants to see other people fail (particularly Rob Bell), but because if it was OK for Rob to feel like he couldn't do it, it was ok for me. That it wasn't because of a lack of faith that I have moments of weakness or doubt.

But as it always does, this time feels different. I get so disgusted with christians and their churches and churchiness I think about telling people I am an atheist just so I don't have to deal with other christians. In fact, I wasn't too far away from being an atheist at one time. I had settled into a comfortable agnosticism, and wasn't really looking for anything else.

I go and I do the music at CR, not because I want to, but out of a sense of obligation, because if I don't it will fall apart. I go to teach at the Center not because I am excited about transforming the minds of the youth there, but because I said I would, and that means I have to finish this term.

I wish I had some awesome clincher, to tie everything all together and show how things are currently headed towards God's plan. I don't. I don't have all the answers, and I don't pretend to. You aren't supposed to have it all together to be a good christian, and the longer I work at being a good christian, the more I think it is more about admitting that you don't have it all together, that you can't have it all together.

Maybe people would hate christians less if more christians understood that. I think I would.

Podcast

nospam@example.com (Will Luongo) — Tue, 15 May 2007 23:26:46 -0400

For those of you who care, the podcast has been up for a while.

Hoobajoob Report Podcast

Faking it: How to seem like a better person without actually improving yourself

nospam@example.com (Will Luongo) — Tue, 15 May 2007 16:07:20 -0400

Sometimes, having a mother-in-law who works at Borders' corporate office is awesome. Well, to be honest, I can't really think of a time where it isn't.

I suppose if there was some super awesome contest I won but couldn't get the prize because I am related to someone who works at borders, then it wouldn't be awesome. But that will never happen so we will stick with awesome for now.

Anyway, one of the benefits of having family that works at Borders is that every once and a while she brings home books from the free book table and gives them to us.

This time, on of the books was titled "Faking it: How to seem like a better person without actually improving yourself", and I thought to myself: Gee. I already have several copies of the bible. What do I need this book for?

Of course, I am being a little sarcastic. It isn't the bible that promises to make people seem better than they are. In fact, the bible is all about actually becoming a better person, and that becoming a better person often comes at great cost.

Sadly, the church at large does not seem to share this view of the human condition. Most churches seem very comfortable with the kind of self help "Faking it" promises.

How to tell if your church is "Faking it":

- Does your leadership avoid confrontation, even when it is obviously needed?
- Does your leadership pretend to love everyone, without having real relationships with anyone?
- Is your pastor going through the motions of being the perfect pastor?
- What is your pastor's family dynamic like? Are they well adjusted? Is he a workaholic?
- Does your church's budget show that people are a priority, or facilities? If people, who? Just the pastor? Where does your money go?
- Is it ok to be broken in your church? Could you come in and say "I am fucking pissed at God and can't take it anymore"? Or would they shoo you away for your blasphemy?
- Would Jesus flip the tables at your church? What would His theologic discussions with your leadership be like?
- Is everyone ok as long as they believe the same things you do?
- Can your kids watch Harry Potter?
- Is Sesame Street the tool of satan?
- Are video games to blame more than parents? What about music?

Come to think of it, it isn't just the church, it is our society. It is the world we live in. How strange then we are supposed to be in the world not of it, but church culture is the exact same. There needs to be a real paradigm shift if the church is going to make a difference, and they can't fake it.

Warning to all who have computers in Flint

nospam@example.com (Will Luongo) — Wed, 09 May 2007 12:54:35 -0400

Should you ever need any parts, services, or computer related anything do NOT go to Computer Giant on S. Saginaw. One of my clients went there yesterday to get a new fan for the CPU heatsink, and they put the wrong heatsink on his computer for him. It is pretty obviously the wrong heatsink, as it is the wrong size and the mount is wrong, so he had to bend the mounting clips to make it fit.

Where should you go? If you want to take it to a store, take it to ATR computers on Richfield Road (810) 736-7363. If you don't want to spend extra money for the store front take it to your local computer nerd friend. If you have no computer nerd friends and need some, feel free to contact me, I've got plenty. Just ask Nic...

I am Jesus, so are you

nospam@example.com (Will Luongo) — Tue, 08 May 2007 11:03:16 -0400

Probably if you are a christian, the subject of this post has piqued your curiosity, if not offended you. Perhaps even if you don't consider yourself a christian, you are saying: what is this crazy guy talking about. Christian: Don't worry. I'm not blaspheming, but rather stating biblical truth. Please continue reading. Non-christian: Please continue reading too. I hope that it will bring some light into your understanding of other people, christians, and maybe even God. I'm really not crazy...

Here's what's up with the bold statement: I am Jesus and so are you. We, as christians are reflecting Christ to the world at large. This means our family, our co-workers, fellow churchgoers, the homeless guy by the express way begging for food, to the alcoholic the next exit down begging for money, to the cashier at McDonalds: We are their representative of Christ on earth. Think about that for a minute. Let it really sink in.

Think about the person who led you to Christ. Was there something special about that someone? Something that really set them apart in your eyes? And on the other hand, think of one of your most disillusioning experiences. Didn't someone just do something really crappy to you? Something that made you question your value and worth because of something THEY did? This is especially true of non christians: How many of you have been turned or pushed away from pursuing a relationship with God because a "christian" treated you poorly? Maybe a church turned you away because of the type of music you listened to, or the clothes you were wearing. Did that make you want to be like this person? Join this church? (Christians: please put your selves in non-believers shoes for the latter half of that paragraph)

Back when I worked at the apt complex, there was a homeless (or poor, or whatever) person who came up to me and a co worker if we had any change we could spare. I honestly answered I didn't. My coworker then begins searching in his truck. My coworker explains to me as he's looking that he is seeking a bible track. you know, one of the ones you fold up to look like money, and when you unfold it, you find out it's not a twenty dollar bill but a quaint message about a God who died for your sins. He desperately wants to minister to this poor person. But somewhere, the message of grace and love and value seems to get left out. I walked away, because I was ashamed to know that this is how Jesus is presented to people, probably every day. (I've received the same track for a tip as a waiter. "Thanks a lot! I'm already saved. I'll send this to the power company!") I'm reminded of Matt 7:9-12:

“Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.(NIV)"

Maybe it could be interpreted to mean: Which of you, if a hungry man asks for change, gave him some counterfeit money which can buy him no food? Though you are evil, and know how to give a hollow message of love and salvation written on some fake money, doesn't your Father in heaven give you useless and hurtful crap as well? Maybe it couldn't. Maybe the God we love and serve would have us feed the hungry and clothe the naked as if we were doing it unto Him. (Matt 25:35-45) Maybe this same God, who gave His only Son to death so that we can enjoy a personal relationship with Him, doesn't just expect us to shower people with clichés and trite niceties. I think He expects us to go out unto the world and be the salt and the light. (Matt 5:13-16) I really think that in the example above, the salt had lost it's saltiness. Why not just put the track on a piece of string and lead the poor guy around by it? How is that setting the example of a relationship that makes you different from a sadistic high schooler?

I think sometimes christians lose sight of how accountable we really are for how we affect others view of Christ. I know that many times I've had my relationship with God crippled, because of people in the churches attitudes. Even I have wondered "Do I really want to follow the same God as these people?" On the same hand, I know that I've hurt others and their relationship with Jesus. I have a close friend whom I love very much. I know that she looks up to me as a christian, sort of a spiritual mentor. I also know that, unfortunately, at times I've fallen, and said things that discouraged her, or hurt her, that Jesus wouldn't have said. And it's hard, but I know that I am Christ on earth to her. I know that when I express disappointment in her, she feels like she's disappointed God. Not because I am God, but because she values my opinion as a brother in Christ so much, that the two are very hard to distinguish. I've experienced similar things with mentors that I have (had). It's not just limited to people who look up to us, though. Through out scripture, we are called to represent God, to glorify Him and worship Him, not just on Sundays, but every day of our lives by the way we live it, by the grace we reflect to others, by the love we reflect to others.

Our representation of Christ isn't just limited to how mean or nice we are to people. Our virtue and holiness speak to others of what it's like to follow Christ as well. I got into a rather heated discussion with my friend when I said that I can understand and support a church leadership that would not allow a girl living with a married man to play on their praise team (He's not married to her). This friend carries a great deal of baggage from several bad experiences with churches and christians in the past, and things of this nature are rather touchy. Myself, as the Worship Arts director of my church, felt uniquely connected to the situation, in a "what would I do in this situation" kind of way. The argument I had with him isn't crucial here, I cite it as an example because I was developing the same idea. I explained to him that 1) living with your significant other obviously implies that you are sexually active with that person and 2) He's living with a woman who ISN'T HIS WIFE. These are ways that this relationship, which may or may not be wonderful, God-centered, etc, obviously do NOT glorify God. This has several negative ramifications for a person who is involved with a praise team (and even people who aren't) for several reasons. Allowing said person to be on a praise team implies leadership condoning the situation. The situation implies that the people involved condone the situation. These indicate that GOD condones the situation. We all as christians share this responsibility, not just in the more blatant sins of our life, but also things we may not even be convicted of. In Romans 14:13-23 Paul speaks of not knowingly doing something that leads one of our brethren (or sistren ) to fall. It speaks specifically of food and wine, but the idea applies to all areas of our life. You should no more do something that you know would lead a brother (or sister) to fall then you would take an alcoholic to a bar. For example, even if you weren't sexually involved, it would still be a bad witness to others to move in with your SO, because even if you aren't the common conception will be that you are, and that either it is okay, or you think it's okay. That's not to say that you are always responsible for what other people think, but if there is a reasonable expectation that the stumbling block would exist, (i.e. knowingly causing stumble) then you are held accountable for that action.

So, the long and short of it (though it seems really long to me now) is: Please take the time, and prayerful consideration about the way you interact with people, and the way you live your life. To some people in your life, you and I might be the only encounter with Christ they have in their life. Let's make it lead to more enounters, and a relationship with Him.

From LiveJournal

Has Microsoft made a mistake?

nospam@example.com (Will Luongo) — Tue, 01 May 2007 11:02:27 -0400

There are a couple of reasons behind this post. I'll get real honest here: The main reason is because a year or so ago upon the release of the Wii, I predicted that the Wii was going to blow away all competition from the XBox 360 and PS3, because it focused on what makes games worth playing in the first place: Fun. I predicted that PS3 sales were going to flop, and that XBox 360 was going to be the closest to competing with the Wii, but still not really close.

And I was right. The frustrating thing was that I had only said it in conversations with individuals, and I failed to record it. At this point I want desperately to show proof of these predictions and say "See!? I told you so. Nah nah nah nah" or something similarly mature.

This time, I am covering my bases, so to speak. I will be able to point back to this blog and say "I told you so, nah nah nah nah nah". Or, in a worst case scenario, someone who says Microsoft will never die and Linux is a pile of poo will be able to say it. We shall see.

The other reason is that I am something of a technerd, and by something I mean completely. So this idea is of huge interest to me, even though my readers only like politics and ethics. Just once I will live for myself.

As many of you may know, Microsoft recently released its new operating system, Windows Vista. Windows Vista comes in five different flavors, but they all have two things in common. They won't work well with your computer or the software you run on it, and it isn't quite the same old windows you are used to.

For example, Vista Ultimate Super Awesome Homey Slice did not recognize my network card (Linksys 10/100 PCI?!), nor did it run Warcraft 3: Frozen Throne out of the box. I can't say whether some configuration wouldn't fix it, I couldn't find out, I had no internet. They also did away with that annoying menu bar that was always taking away so much screen real estate with a nominal return in usefulness (note: sarcasm). Vista was so frustrating an experience it only lasted one day on my PC.

Microsoft also recently released the next implementation of another one of its staples, the beloved Office suite. Again, the menu bar is gone, but more distressingly, shortcuts don't work. In fact, the only people who will notice the changes really are power users.

So what is the problem?

Non-power users (let's call these people normal) don't care. They don't use functions that only Office provides. They don't care about VBA scripts in Excel. To the regular user, it might as well be Open Office, or Star Office, or Works. Heck some typical users would be fine with a typewriter.

Power users are at a disadvantage here. But interestingly enough I think this disadvantage might come back to bite Microsoft in the butt.

One of the things that has lead to Microsoft's continued domination of the market is that corporations and power users don't want to make the investment to learn new software. Because Microsoft was the defacto standard, people knew Microsoft products. Because people knew Microsoft products, they could upgrade to another Microsoft product, but not a similar product on a Mac, or on Linux. For corporations the additional expenses of training and new user support has been prohibitive, even (or maybe especially) in the case of open source alternatives, like Linux or Open Office.

But now that model has changed. To upgrade to Vista, it is more likely than not that both corporate users and home users are looking at a sizable investment in hardware alone (Read that, buying a new computer). On top of that, there will be time and money invested in learning a new operating system.

Which means at some point, nearly all users will be in a position where they will be forced into this decision. But for Microsoft I beleive this poses a problem:

If you are going to have to buy and learn a totally new operating system anyway, you aren't stuck with Microsoft anymore.

Now some of you might argue that OSX or Linux is not totally new, because the GUIs function in very similar ways. This is true. But the differences are equal to or less than the differences between Vista and XP, which means if you didn't want to switch to OSX or Linux then, you probably are going to be equally leary of Vista now (or you should be, at least).

I just set my father-in-law up with Kubuntu Linux. He was tired of windows and its performance issues. Linux more than meets all his needs, and the transition was painless. Why? He wasn't a power user. If the internet works, his camera works, his scanner works, and his printer works, then he is happy. He doesn't care about the killer app for Windows, he does all he needs to. He has a world of tech support unavailable to him in Windows (IRC, forums, etc) where he can talk to people who actually wrote the software. He has been running Linux for two weeks now, but he hasn't had any problems to date with the transition.

Corporately, Linux has dominated the server market for some time. But recently more and more corporations and government agencies are moving to Mac's OSX and Linux for workstations. I think this is a reflection of the same phenomenon I write about here, and that we will continue to see these trends, probably at an accelerated rate.

To make a long story short, Windows users are coming to a crossroads. Your applications are changing, your operating system is changing. Now is the time when you might as well make a switch to OSX or Linux, because you will be learning a new operating system anyway. You might as well choose one that is well put together and does what you want transparantly.

The prediction: I think that Microsoft will see a greater loss of the PC market in both Windows and Office than in the recent past to other operating systems, and open source software alternatives. I think this will be reflected at both corporate and personal user levels.

Euthyphro's Dilemma

nospam@example.com (Will Luongo) — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:52:27 -0400

I once came across a young man (older than I am) who had just obtained a four year degree in Philosophy (with a focus in Logic and Ethics). Being something of a philosopher myself (with a fascination with Logic and Ethics), I immediately struck up a conversation with this man.

Of course the conversation turned toward things of an ethical nature, and we began discussing morality. Very early in the conversation I tell him I believe in an absolute moral standard. He scoffs at me, and says "there are no absolutes!". This of course piques my interest, "There are no absolutes??!?" He replies "Yes, there are no absolutes." "So, what you are saying is there are absolutely no absolutes?" He stops, looks at me and says "Well, I was... but now that you put it like that..."

Later in our conversation, we began talking about God (he is an atheist). He then pulls his trump card: Euthyphro's Dilemma. Is conduct right because God commands it, or does God demand it because it is right? I will now take the time to develop the ramifications of this question to a theist, particularly one of the Christian sect.

If conduct is right because God commands it, then there really isn't an absolute moral value, because anything can then be right, if God commands it. For example, murder would then be okay, if God were to command that it was, lying would be okay if God were to command that it was, etc. Further, the doctrine of God's holiness would then be entirely negated, because the only reason God would be holy is because he arbitrarily decides holiness anyway. In Discourse on Metaphysics, Leibniz says with great clarity:

"So in saying that things are not good by any rule of goodness, but sheerly by the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory. For why praise him for what he has done if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing the contrary?"

Whereas if God demands right conduct because it is right, then there is a moral standard independent of God's will. While this does allow for the doctrine of God's holiness, this also implies a greater power that God must answer to in order to maintain His holiness.

Some in the past have tried to argue both, but by following the choices presented, this presents 1) a circular argument at best, and 2) a blatant contradiction at worst. Neither represents the faith in a particularly positive (nor rational) light.

1) Good is because God says so, God says so because it is good
2) God arbitrarily decides holiness and God does not arbitrarily decide holiness.

Take a couple of moments to dwell on these ideas and the ramifications they have for your faith.
Continue reading "Euthyphro's Dilemma"

A look at baptism

nospam@example.com (Will Luongo) — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:30:00 -0400

I'd actually been planning this post for almost two weeks, which is kind of ironic for two reasons. Firstly, because it is late (I believe only my second delayed post to date). Secondly, because I found myself with an entirely unrelated but similar conversation on Andre's blog a few days ago. While many of the things I write in my blog are in many ways inspired by events or ideas on Andre's or HC's blog, this one was not.

I've been spending a lot of time studying Judaism. Not because I am considering conversion, but because I think that the Jewish tradition is an important part of understanding my faith as a follower of Jesus. Like I pointed out in my conversation with Perez, Jesus Himself was a Jew, and observed Jewish traditions.

A lot of times, christians tend to minimize their Jewish heritage. When confronted with an inconvenient passage from the Old Testament, most christians will say: Well, the New Testament says that the Old Testament doesn't matter anymore. Or, they talk about: Jesus came with the new law, so the old doesn't matter.

This is in direct contradiction to what Jesus taught. He said: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

This is strangely different from a typical christian's perspective on the old testament. While it is convenient to do away with the rules and laws of the old testament, I don't think that is what we are supposed to do.

On the other hand, there are many things that don't apply to us. I have a variety of theories on this, but I can sum it up like this. Jesus seems to look not at the Law itself, but the why of the Law. Why don't I covet my neighbor's wife? Because that isn't loving my neighbor. Why don't I worship idols? Because that isn't loving God.

But there are many things that christians cut out that seem like they would help us enjoy a more fruitful, deep and loving relationship with God and other people.

Jewish tradition is very driven by community and symbolism.

Christianity has settled into being driven by individualism, consumerism, and a pornography-like shallowness.

How can I compare christian doctrines to porn? Because porn is not subtle. Porn has no deeper meaning. Porn is what you see, two (or more) people engaged in sexual activity.

Similarly, christianity tries to do away with depth. We take something bigger than ourselves and put into a perspective revolving around us. Christians tend to take something big, beautiful, and amazing, and reduce it to the self serving whims of the moment. Spiritual pornography if you will.

Baptism is an area that I think has suffered more than almost any other (tied with marriage, and communion). Ask a typical christian what baptism is about. Most won't have any idea, some will say it is a symbolic burial, others talk of an outward profession of faith.

But what if we look at it in the sense of a Jewish tradition?

What if we consider the fact that Jesus does not seem big on outward signs, but inward reflections?

In Jewish culture, symbolism and meaning are very important, although many times still tied to the practical.

What if baptism is about washing yourself spiritually? Not in the sense of baptism being required for salvation (it isn't), but in the sense of coming clean? What if like washing your hands before you eat, there is a deeper meaning? Not an outward sign, but a ceremony of internal cleansing that is complete and whole?

Have you ever heard a song that moved you in a way much deeper than what it seemed like it should have? That this combination of words and melody might become greater than the sum of its parts?

I had a conversation the other day with my wife about how although I don't have any convictions about profanity, that generally speaking, really really good music tends not to use any. I told her I thought that it was because using the f-word is a cheap and easy way to communicate anger (remember the porn stuff), and that the songs that seem most satisfying are the ones where I can feel the anger or hurt, not just because of the language used but because of the skillful song crafting that lead me on that path (HC I know you are into this).

Maybe baptism shouldn't be an outward sign, or just a rite of passage we go through. Maybe it should be like that song, that doesn't come out and say it.

I think it is. I think that baptism is about your choice to be cleansed, your desire to get rid of anything inside of you that isn't clean or good. It is beautiful and poetic, greater than the sum of its parts.

I think we need to evaluate more of our traditions and our services. How are we participating in spiritual pornography? What can we do to change it?